<trackbot> Date: 11 October 2012

<janina> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: HTML Accessibility Task Force Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 11 October 2012

<janina> Meeting: HTML-A11Y Task Force Teleconference

Proposed TF Amendment http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0063.html

<janina> DRAFT RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force approves and supports the HTML

<janina> Working Group's proposed addition to the Task Force Scope of Work statement as

<janina> documented at:

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html

<Stevef> will be a bit late to meeting

<richardschwerdtfe> scribenick: Rich

<richardschwerdtfe> meeting: HTML A11y task force

<janina> Steve, do you have any objections to the draft resolution as follows ...

<janina> DRAFT RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force approves and supports the HTML

<janina> Working Group's proposed addition to the Task Force Scope of Work statement as

<janina> documented at:

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html

Amendment to the HTML A11Y Task Force Work Statement

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: please read the draft

<richardschwerdtfe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: if agreed upon we would announce the change

<richardschwerdtfe> judy: The proposal is to add the following at the end of the "Scope of Work"

<richardschwerdtfe> section:

<richardschwerdtfe> The task force may also create specifications that extend

<richardschwerdtfe> deliverables of the HTML Working Group, in the area of

<richardschwerdtfe> accessibility. The Accessibility Task Force will have decision

<richardschwerdtfe> authority over the contents of such extension specifications. Any

<richardschwerdtfe> such specifications will be considered jointly produced by the HTML

<richardschwerdtfe> Working Group and PFWG, for purposes of W3C Publication. This means

<richardschwerdtfe> that, as with any w3c joint task force deliverable, both Working

<richardschwerdtfe> Groups much approve transitions such as First Public Working Draft

<richardschwerdtfe> or Last Call. It also means that documents will create Patent

<richardschwerdtfe> Policy obligations in both groups. Members of either Working Group

<richardschwerdtfe> who have technical comments or objections on Task Force

<richardschwerdtfe> publications are expected to raise them in the context of the Task

<richardschwerdtfe> Force.

<JF> http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/html-task-force

<janina> DRAFT RESOLUTION: The HTML-A11Y Task Force approves and supports the HTML

<janina> Working Group's proposed addition to the Task Force Scope of Work statement as

<janina> documented at:

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0016.html

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: the link is part of the resolution

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: we could do something different if desired. Any comments?

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: we can have an email consensus

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: if there are no objections do we resolve this?

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: any reservations or concerns?

<richardschwerdtfe> judy: I want to just note that there has been a clarification question on the list with regard to the task force processing of this.

<richardschwerdtfe> judy: there was a question as to what is expected.

<richardschwerdtfe> judy: Maciej clarified on the HTML WG list but agreed there it could be clearer

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: Approvals for extensions would be going through the decision policy. It would go through a call for consensus.

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: Perhaps for the record Paul or Sam could restate what the HTML co-chairs plan on handling extension publication approval in terns of a call for consensus

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: Paul and Sam are on the call

<janina> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0043.html

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: I am looking for co-chair confirmation in the TF minutes, since we have gotten several questions about what the approval process would be for standalone extension mechanisms.

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I am asking as the decision process handles bugs. I am trying to grapple with how any decision policy talks about this.

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: we have people wondering about this

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I understand

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8895

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: that is the bug

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: All observers not paying attention as to how document advancements have been published

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: The bug that is there is the one that needs to be clarified

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: I think the confusion, as I heard it, is that some people think that an extension goes through the consensus process before getting published which I don't think is the intent.

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I don't have an opinion. This bug is very old. The heart of the bug is that we should have a single document. The existing version 3 of the decision policy does not cover this matter

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: The HTML working group would issue a call for consensus on issuing the first public working draft

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I am not sure how we mitigate the concern

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: what you are saying is that what we always do is issue a call for consensus to which we can point people to.

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: the text we are talking about pertains to progressions toward last call

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: When we did the last call for HTMl5 we actually did a survey.

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: We did not only a call for consensus but we also enabled a survey to log peoples consensus

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: For last call a survey accurately records the in put from participants

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: You are talking about progressions toward last call. If we are getting something actually published toward a spec. we need to address all steps including recommendation. So I am puzzled by the survey point.

<rubys> www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/html5-last-call-poll/results

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: if you look back we did a survey and a call for consensus

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I don't have any historical consensus beyond last call

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: we might even do a call for consensus on the implementation/test plan

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: to summarize it is not clear but it will probably be call for consensus plus survey in what is covered in the decision policy

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I don't know why you are referring to the decision policy

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: Got it. Call for consensus plus survey

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: I have a pragmatic question/proposal

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: The question centers around philosophy

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: What happens when the task force is philosophically opposed.

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: I am referring to longdesc as an extension. How do we resolve those philosophical vs. technical decisions.

<richardschwerdtfe> Paul: I don't have an answer at this time.

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: I think what is now is attempted is completely different. Before we were not dependent on implementation. That is different now.

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: Was there not a change to replace technical with substantive? I believe it was substituted in one part of the language and not in this.

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: It missed in edit that it superseded the word technical. That may be why we unnecessarily have this concern

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: I remember this discussion. It was made on the call for consensus. I would not object to the change.

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: while it is less likely we would get pushback it would allay some of the existing perceptional issues

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: Are you referring to a one word change?

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: replace technical with substantive.

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: It went out with the call for consensus

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: sound like Sam agrees to this as a friendly amendment

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: Yes if the co-chairs agree

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: the task may be prepared to move forward with this one amendment

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: a one word amendment

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: I think that making that one word has benefit.

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: when it reaches the point where the task force comes to the broader working group what do we do when there is a weak vs. strong objection.

<rubys> http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies#managing-dissent

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: I have heard discussions on both sides of the issue will be used for the GUI interface. When there is direct interaction with the browser this would be a good thing. Others say it should not have an impact on the discussion. That is a philosophical decision.

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: How do we have that discussion?

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: is it the intent of the co-chairs of the task force that this be an escalation point. we would need to manage the descent. The W3C process is more about evaluating the proposals themselves.

<richardschwerdtfe> Steve: I agree with Sam and I do as well

<rubys> I'll try to add it to IRC:

<richardschwerdtfe> thanks

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: concerns as to how evidence is weighted wrt. other issues. I am clarifying the difference in scenario that the process presents

<rubys> passing the exit criteria is considered strong evidence; generally much stronger than philosophic concerns over which there are no concrete proposals or no evidence of implementation or actual usage

<richardschwerdtfe> Rich: Agreed

<richardschwerdtfe> Judy: Agreed

<richardschwerdtfe> Steve: Agreed

<rubys> example: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Mar/0005.html

<Stevef> rubys: and that resulted in a forking of html/html5

<richardschwerdtfe> cynthia: would not the impact of aria on the browser behavior be part of the ARIA spec. and not the HTML spec.?

<richardschwerdtfe> cynthia: the impact of ARIA markup on mainstream browser behavior.

<richardschwerdtfe> Rich: I think that today authors are going pick up aria for development. If browsers pick up aria to enhance their interface they will do so because it is the right thing to do.

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: if browsers implement UI features that will trump philosophical differences

<richardschwerdtfe> Cynthia: this could be addressed in the ARIA 2.0 time frame.

<paulc> I am going to step away to get ready for the WG call.

<richardschwerdtfe> Rich: I think more interactive behavior based in ARIA would be in the 2.0 time frame so I agree with Cynthia.

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: is there any objection to the draft resolution with the addition to replacing technical with substantive?

<richardschwerdtfe> Rich and Judy: No objection

<richardschwerdtfe> RESOLUTION: The task force supports the work statement amendment with the substitution of substantive for technical

<JF> +1

<richardschwerdtfe> +1

<Stevef> https://twitter.com/HTML_Commits/status/256414328763322368

7.1

<Stevef> 'screen reader' to 'printer'

<richardschwerdtfe> Rich: I was asked to file a bug

<hober> bug 18299?

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: the substitution for screen readers with printers was done.

<hober> bugs 18299, 19159, 19277, and 19279

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: these are the 4 remaining bugs

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: they are interrelated.

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: For styling purposes this is probably not ideal

<plh> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18299

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: so you can set display on a number of spans and then when you applied the hidden attribute and the display overrided it the CSS would win

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: this will clear up all the resolutions between CSS display:none and hidden would be addressed.

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: In the language that was suggested to Ted you could still include scriptable content. Last week some of the event handlers do require focus. Where do they fit into the larger picture.

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: we say that you cannot put focus on that hidden div. There seems to be a contradiction here. I have not heard a response.

<Zakim> rubys, you wanted to ask what about action 142? http://www.w3.org/2012/10/04-html-a11y-minutes.html#action02

<richardschwerdtfe> Sam: Is this the list of bugs. I see Cynthia on the call who was supposed to open another bug.

<rubys> "cynthia to file HTML bug about methods that should fail when an element has @hidden set"

<richardschwerdtfe> JF: it is around the event handlers in JavaScript

<rubys> +1 :-)

<richardschwerdtfe> janina: we need to get this addressed.

<richardschwerdtfe> Rich: I agree with Ted that the CSS issue needs to be addressed first

<richardschwerdtfe> Ted: If we make a change to the default styling of hidden we will make CSS aware of it.

<richardschwerdtfe> RRSAgent make log public

<richardschwerdtfe> RRSAgent draft minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.137  of Date: 2012/09/20 20:19:01  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/co-chair confirmation/co-chair confirmation in the TF minutes, since we have gotten several questions about what the approval process would be for standalone extension mechanisms./
Succeeded: s/was made by/was made on the call for/
Succeeded: s/must/much/
Succeeded: s/must/much/
Found ScribeNick: Rich
WARNING: No scribe lines found matching ScribeNick pattern: <Rich> ...
Inferring Scribes: Rich

WARNING: 0 scribe lines found (out of 259 total lines.)
Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick?

Default Present: Janina, Cooper, hober, paulc, John_Foliot, Judy, Rich, Cynthia_Shelly, Stevef, Sam, Plh
Present: Janina Cooper hober paulc John_Foliot Judy Rich Cynthia_Shelly Stevef Sam Plh
Regrets: James_Craig
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-a11y/2012Oct/0070.html
Found Date: 11 Oct 2012
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2012/10/11-html-a11y-minutes.html
People with action items: